Good morning.
We moan about the InterLull, but it’s actually been quite eventful. We discovered that football is Clan run and …I was told to remove my blog on those leaked online documents on Arry & the CPS by the Metropolitan Police.
Undaunted, here’s some more dirt for your delectation.
Karren Brady has been banging the hard done by drum with gusto for sometime now. But events in the High Court this week indicate that she may have something to complain about. Brady’s barristers believe that her telephone records were, ‘unlawfully obtained by subterfuge.’
At a time where phone hacking is revealed as having been quite commonplace and 100% distasteful – as well as completely illegal – the public reaction toward this type of behaviour if proved, won’t be good. Nor ought it. Tottenham need to come out of swinging here and distance themselves from activity that might place them in the public mind as feeding from the same trough as West Ham.
Tottenham appear to have smelt a rat in relation to the OS deal and engaged the services of PKF Forensic Accountants. What do they do for a living? Their site is here and so you can draw your own conclusions.
I can cope with a bit of rooting through dustbins, after all nobody’s very likely to phone you up out of the blue and tell you that they are up to no good. But this has all the hallmarks of something deeply unpleasant. West Ham have despite their poker faces been embarrassed by the revelation that – shall we say – the process’ waters were muddied. But does that give anyone who’s interested a green light to break the law? All we know so far is that 2 people were arrested in connection allegations of fraud/spying and both bailed.
Neither Tottenham nor their agents can hide behind a defence of, ‘yeah, but look what we found’ in this matter. Equally it will get very messy very quickly if the finger is pointing an accusing finger at PKF and suggesting that they overstepped the mark. This undoubtedly a shadowy world we’re getting a glimpse of here. The case continues…
and although it’s a nuice idea, I really don’;t think a defence of “We didn’t do, it was our accounts who we pay money to”
is likely to last long in the high court
as long as the judge does not believe that there was a nod and a wink and an understanding that the law wd be broken then spurs shd be fine, the guys they used are not their employees and they shd not be liable for what they did.
i wd be very surprised and very disappointed if spurs screwed this up, especially in light of the righteous indignation that laces their responses to baroness ford and her statements
If you or any judge were to reverse the circumstances of this issue what would you conclude?
1. Spurs decline the invitation to tender because of the track.
2. West Ham equally say the track makes football non viable (Gold’s words)
3. Spurs invited to tender with the OC’s full knowledge that the track would go and athletic’s would return to Crystal Palace.
4. Spurs submit new plans at considerable expense
5. Spurs lose vote 12-0 because they will get rid of said track, which made their bid non-viable
I agreetheprocess was 100% a con
BUT – that has no baring whatsoever on this case
Why these records were hacked/stolen or however you want to phrase it won’t come into, just wether they were and by who
I fully understand that this issue has no bearing, however this is a war not a single battle, and in the light of things is pretty trivial in comparison to the bigger debate. We’ve been conned, we sought retribution by’legal’ means, were told to fcuk off again, but have since been proved correct in our original assessment. Someone has to repay us for wasting valuable resources and it’s another way of lessening what due to us.
@essex
This reminds me of the time when breakfast TV were getting people involved in premium rate phone competitions and still encouraging people to phone in after they had decided who the winners were going to be.
I think a complaint should have also been made to the Local Government Ombudsman about the phoney tendering process.
I’m pretty certain it had Dub, but was met with derision from both the media and law as us being poor losers when everything suggested otherwise. We’re 80million down on the deal apparently, so a sweetener of 17m and a pile of rubble is hardly compensation for walking away from this. I really, truly think there’s a wholesale incompetence or even worse white collar fraud amongst all this and I’m also surprised that no real investigation into the process of procurement of land, building and planning of the stadium and it’s subsequent use after the games hasn’t taken place, the whole thing stinks worse than Billingsgate in a heatwave
cyril
I don;t think any of us on here believe there WASN@T a wink from Levy
So why would a judge who sees cases like this all the time?
Because he needs proof, not just a feeling. The FA and Premiere League have no jurisdiction on this matter.
More to the point, these accountants, if they have any sense, will not be telling clients that they indulge in illegal activity on behalf of their clients. The reason for that, is that they never know what the client will say if they are ever put in the witness box.
If we’ve only paid them to do this thena nything they do will be seen as being done in our name
so likley we’ll end up having to pay the porno boys a few million, then try to get back from PKF
look at the BP oil thing
Was an American Company they hired that f**ked up
But as they were under BP’s employ it was BP that had to pay out all the money
It was their oil.
Apparently BP, got half the money back in court $10b.
@cb
What you are talking about is a legal principle known as “vicarious liability”. For this to be established, it has to be shown that the employers knew about it, or could reasonably anticipate it and would have been indifferent to it. If the matter had been discussed in advance, and had not been ruled out by Levy, then there might be a case. But as I said in an earlier post, I can’t see that the accountants would have been stupid enough to suggest this.
but they didn’t make the mistake that caused it to spill
that’s what i’m saying, I’m not sure if our defence consists of nothing but
“Yes we did pay that company to do something but they did it wrong”
is likely to stand up in court
this could get really serious, if the porno lot as I’m sure they will try to ties this into them not getting the stadium then they could sue for 10’s of millions
No they didnt which is why the sued become the suers. Eg BP sued by usa, Makers of faulty product sued by Bp, Low grade steel maufacturers sued by Makers of faulty product Etc Etc and throughout all this the insurance companies are actually the ones paying out.